Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
Return to: Sports
*****************************************************
#Post#: 21375--------------------------------------------------
Chelsea
By: Kerry Date: February 3, 2019, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We have so many posts about Chelsea, I thought I'd start a
thread. I copied this post from another thread.
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1303.msg21353#msg21353
date=1548872590]
Kerry - ^
As you might know, some youtube uploaders aren't precise in
naming their uploads and some vids aren't official at all.
Sarriball is Sarriball regardless of the year. I think you have
the capacity to understand the second vid when you're wide
awake. Formations, the terms used in the vid which I'm now clear
about, sunk in by osmosis for me through the decades ;)
:).[/quote]
I don't think it fair to say everything a team does at first
playing for Sarri is Sarriball.
[quote]No, I'm not inconsistent about the three points and refs.
You put forward a hypothetical situation, so I'll give a
hypothetical answer. A boot to the crotch co-ed style is likely
accidental as is a male player falling onto a woman player. Refs
should be enforcing consequences for what appears to be intended
fouls in both separate gender-games. As far as I know, there are
no co-ed leagues. In France, it's four points for a win in the
women's league, two for a tie, and one for a loss.
My objection to co-ed matches is that men are more physically
imposing than women on average. As I've indicated, women's teams
play teams of 15-year-old males to sharpen their skills and can
be badly beaten by them.[/quote]
For me, it comes down to damage done by the rules. Intention or
lack of intention is hard to figure.
[quote]Liverpool were eliminated from the League Cup by a lesser
club. It happens. You see Juventus getting knocked out of the
Coppa Italia today by Atalanta, a club that is 27 points behind
them in Serie A. If you're in a Premier, you're getting Premier
money. I don't like offenders and weaker clubs determining win
weights. This strikes me as socialized entertainment. Those
clubs who are very good ought to be seen as very good by points.
Yes, the penalty for the bad day is greater but it ought to be
for the better clubs. They're not playing up to capacity when
they're losing matches they shouldn't. I don't like playoffs
because it encourages mediocrity. In most soccer leagues, every
match is important for its title unless it's mathematically
impossible to catch them.[/quote]Would it have mattered anyway?
I remind you too that Atalanta probably wouldn't have been 27
points behind Juventus if teams got two points for a win and not
three.
Also there wouldn't be that many more playoffs using a two-point
system for wins. At most, you might need a playoff between the
two top teams or possibly three.
[quote]Often in soccer, there's the back-pass. One step
backwards, two steps forward. The reason for it is mainly to
retain possession. Also, the player in front with the ball
doesn't see the pitch as well as the player behind him without
the ball. The player behind has a wider view of who's available
since the ball-carrier is concentrating on dribbling and just
retaining the ball. Sometimes front-dribblers run into walls and
their only option is the back-pass. As well, the back-pass can
work as the first step in re-cycling the ball for the "switch" -
- that is, starting the attack from the other flank of the
pitch. [/quote]
I can see another possible advantage. If the goal area is
crowded, a back pass might draw some defenders back; and then
you pass the ball forward again, your chances of scoring would
be better. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't catch the pattern
watching the video. I saw what looked like meaningless passes
to me.
The highlights of Chelsea's game with Huddersfield contained
some moves that confused me terribly. Maybe there's an
explanation, maybe you can provide it. It left me dazed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj89xAhRTp0
The first move that puzzled me is at 4:24 when #9 passes the
ball to #22 in the corner more or less. I was expected #22 to
pass the ball back to another player better positioned to take
the shot; but he took it and missed.
The next one that puzzled me follows that immediately. Someone
makes a splendid pass to #28 who passes it to #22 who passes
back to #28 who is in the corner at that point. Huh? I found
pass to #28 impressive since whoever kicked the ball was
predicting where #28 could be in the future, and #28 arrived
smoothly to receive the pass. But why did #22 pass it back to
#28?
I have other questions about Sarri-ball in Serie A. In the
2015-2016 season
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015�16_Serie_A,
when Sarri first
arrived, Juventus placed first with 91 points; and Napoli came
in second with 82 and with Roma a close third with 80. That was
great improvement over the prior season. Sarri seemed to get
wonderful results quickly.
Then in the 2016-2017 season
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016�17_Serie_A,
Juventus had 91
points again; but Roma came in second with 87 points, one point
ahead of Napoli who slipped to third with 86.
Napoli regained second place in the 2017-2018 season
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017�18_Serie_A.
Juventus had 95
points, Napoli had 91 and poor Roma had slipped to 77.
This makes me ask if it is true that it takes time, lots of
time, for the techniques of Sarri-ball to be manifested on the
pitch. It seems to me, Sarri's most astonishing result was in
the first year he was there. And that forces me to ask also if
there were other changes at Napoli at the time that helped
produce that improvement over the 2014-2015 season when Napoli
ranked fifth with 63 points? I can think of one: Higuain.
#Post#: 21383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: paralambano Date: February 3, 2019, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry - ^
Ya, not everything Chelsea does is Sarriball. Why do you think
Sarri gets upset with his players? As I said, it's easier to
implement his system in Spain and Italy because of the type of
play there. His is an experiment, much like Pep's when he went
over to Manchester and I say go for it. Take a look at Jurgen's
and Pep's records their debut seasons. It took a while to get
the ball rolling for both. And now look at them. Pep broke many
EPL records and Klopp was in the CL final last season. The last
EPL club to win the CL was Chelsea.
Ya, it's hard to judge intention but my point is that you don't
change a point system on the basis of a hypothetical (co-ed
soccer). And you don't change it on the basis of offenses. I see
some things being let go by some refs. Some are reluctant to
give early yellows. Look at what Messi and Neymar endure before
the ref finally pulls out the card.
I like the point spread with 3 First, it's a difficult game with
the most km run of any sport on average. Giving 2 points for a
win is just being stingy for the effort I think. In the NFL it's
something like 6 for a touchdown and a bunch of other extras. I
don't know how many points are awarded for a win since I don't
follow the game but if it's 2, they sure make up for it by all
the points awarded during the game.
I think the 3 point system really separates the very good teams
from the bad.
Ya, I didn't list all the advantages of the back-pass. I agree
with what you wrote about it moving defenders. A back-pass can
be used to draw opponents forward deeper into one's half so that
their last line plays higher. This allows speedy wingers more
space behind them if the attackers remain onside.
The only meaningless passing in soccer is one without purpose.
Barcelona and some other clubs are masters of wearing opponents
down and aggravating them with their possession. Their opponents
tire of chasing the ball. Also passing which appears to be
meaningless is used to calm one side, gives them a chance to
catch one's breath. Barcelona can dictate the tempo of the game.
I've seen Messi stop play altogether standing with his foot on
top of a dead ball as if daring his opponents to come get it
before dribbling or passing the ball away.
Kerry, it's a fast game. Players really need to make
split-second decisions. The don't see the pitch from our
bird's-eye view. Often they make a bad decision. Sometimes they
think they can score when they can't. The point is that they
need to keep the number of mistakes down. It really is a game of
mistakes and the team with fewer usually wins. A player will
pass to another in a corner so that the latter can loft it into
the box. Remember, the player with the ball is busy with it and
the one without it might better see who to give it to when they
get it. Play off the ball is as important as having it.
Sometimes I'm yelling at my screen for the ball-carrier to give
it to a player in space but the ball's given to another and I
was wrong about it.
Well, ya, Higuain. But it's also the technical players Sarri had
in the Italian style. Please watch a Serie A match all the way
through, then an EPL one. You ought to see the difference in
manner of play pretty much immediately.
para . . . .
#Post#: 21469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: Kerry Date: February 12, 2019, 3:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1384.msg21383#msg21383
date=1549202010]
Kerry - ^
Ya, not everything Chelsea does is Sarriball. Why do you think
Sarri gets upset with his players? As I said, it's easier to
implement his system in Spain and Italy because of the type of
play there. His is an experiment, much like Pep's when he went
over to Manchester and I say go for it. Take a look at Jurgen's
and Pep's records their debut seasons. It took a while to get
the ball rolling for both. And now look at them. Pep broke many
EPL records and Klopp was in the CL final last season. The last
EPL club to win the CL was Chelsea.[/quote]There's that and then
there's the matter of age too. I'm not sure, but I think I read
that Sarri wants more younger players. Some of the current
players cannot play at the top speeds Sarri wants for 90
minutes.
[quote]Ya, it's hard to judge intention but my point is that you
don't change a point system on the basis of a hypothetical
(co-ed soccer). And you don't change it on the basis of
offenses. I see some things being let go by some refs. Some are
reluctant to give early yellows. Look at what Messi and Neymar
endure before the ref finally pulls out the card.[/quote]
I checked out one Season of Serie A matches. Both point
systems gave the same final standings.
[quote]I like the point spread with 3 First, it's a difficult
game with the most km run of any sport on average. Giving 2
points for a win is just being stingy for the effort I think. In
the NFL it's something like 6 for a touchdown and a bunch of
other extras. I don't know how many points are awarded for a win
since I don't follow the game but if it's 2, they sure make up
for it by all the points awarded during the game.
I think the 3 point system really separates the very good teams
from the bad. [/quote]I can't see it, not from the one Serie A
season I looked at.
I like 2 because it's known beforehand exactly how many points
there are to go around.
[quote]Ya, I didn't list all the advantages of the back-pass. I
agree with what you wrote about it moving defenders. A back-pass
can be used to draw opponents forward deeper into one's half so
that their last line plays higher. This allows speedy wingers
more space behind them if the attackers remain onside.
The only meaningless passing in soccer is one without purpose.
Barcelona and some other clubs are masters of wearing opponents
down and aggravating them with their possession. Their opponents
tire of chasing the ball. Also passing which appears to be
meaningless is used to calm one side, gives them a chance to
catch one's breath. Barcelona can dictate the tempo of the game.
I've seen Messi stop play altogether standing with his foot on
top of a dead ball as if daring his opponents to come get it
before dribbling or passing the ball away. [/quote]
I'm at a disadvantage not watching entire games; but I think I
can discern some things from highlights. I think you nailed it
with the comment about Barcelona often being able to wear down
other teams. That makes sense and is a great technique.
Sarri-ball, from what I can discern, seems to wear down Chelsea
players more than their opponents at times. They seem to using
speed and passes just because Sarri wants them to -- it looks
meaningless to me at times.
Sarri-ball also seems a bit too predictable. Messi, as you
point out, can be unpredictable. Perhaps if I watched more
match highlights when Chelsea lost I could get a better picture
of what's going wrong. I suspect -- again I don't know -- that
sometimes when Messi stalls like that, it serves more than one
purpose. The one Chelsea seems to need to master perhaps is
how to regain their balance when things go awry and positions
get lost. I suspect that sometimes Messi is stalling to enable
the other players to take up better positions. While the
opponents are looking at him, his teammates are improving their
positions, getting ready for the next play. I suspect that, but
I don't know. If that is what is going on, Chelsea might
improve by imitating the technique. The question may be if
Hazard or Higuain can master that technique -- or if Sarri would
approve of it. I don't know if Sarri is aware of the
technique -- perhaps not since he complains about how Chelsea
players get confused. I assume that every team has to deal
with some confusion. Anytime a player steals the ball from the
other team, there is an interval of time where everyone has to
deal with the fact that possession of the ball has changed.
Positions of players may need adjusting. Who knows?
The thing about Messi doing that is that it does not result in
confusion in the Barcelona ranks. It may confuse the other
team, but not the Barcelona players. It's also a good morale
booster, I think, to see him standing there seemingly doing
nothing but still in control. If his teammates were momentarily
confused, seeing him in control would cure it.
[quote]Kerry, it's a fast game. Players really need to make
split-second decisions. The don't see the pitch from our
bird's-eye view. Often they make a bad decision. Sometimes they
think they can score when they can't. The point is that they
need to keep the number of mistakes down. It really is a game of
mistakes and the team with fewer usually wins. A player will
pass to another in a corner so that the latter can loft it into
the box. Remember, the player with the ball is busy with it and
the one without it might better see who to give it to when they
get it. Play off the ball is as important as having it.
Sometimes I'm yelling at my screen for the ball-carrier to give
it to a player in space but the ball's given to another and I
was wrong about it. [/quote]Let me put it another way then: I
never saw the Barcelona team make a series of passes like that.
Absolutely they aren't seeing the pitch from the bird's eye
view; but when a team is functioning well as a team, they
instinctively know where lots of other players will probably be.
[quote]Well, ya, Higuain. But it's also the technical players
Sarri had in the Italian style. Please watch a Serie A match all
the way through, then an EPL one. You ought to see the
difference in manner of play pretty much immediately.
[/quote]Why did he take the job at Chelsea then?
Whether he keeps his job may depend on the Europa League matches
coming up soon. I checked out the standings -- Chelsea's not
doing too bad. If Sarri can do good enough to get them back in
the UEFA Champions League, he may not get the ax.
#Post#: 21470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: paralambano Date: February 12, 2019, 4:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
[quote]There's that and then there's the matter of age too. I'm
not sure, but I think I read that Sarri wants more younger
players. Some of the current players cannot play at the top
speeds Sarri wants for 90 minutes.[/quote]
That's right. He needs younger players who are still teachable.
His system is an extreme one. That's what makes it interesting
for me. Can he do with his system what Pep did with his in
England? Watch Man City play to see how closely they resemble
Barca at times. British football's being revolutionized by these
guys. Even Jurgen at Liverpool has brought his own style there.
These aren't British coaches. They don't want 50/50 and second
balls, the hoof it up and chase it style of play.
[quote]I checked out one Season of Serie A matches. Both point
systems gave the same final standings.[/quote]
Then why change it? I still think that the three points gives a
psychological advantage (or disadvantage) over the two.
[quote]I like 2 because it's known beforehand exactly how many
points there are to go around. [/quote]
It's entertainment for me, Kerry. I'd rather not know it.
Knowing the end from the beginning can be a fool's game in this
sport since there are some shocking developments. Look at how
Real are creeping up on Barca and how Barca have only gotten
three points out of a possible nine currently. It's more of a
day-by-day thing for me, a build or countdown to how many games
left.
[quote]I'm at a disadvantage not watching entire games; but I
think I can discern some things from highlights. I think you
nailed it with the comment about Barcelona often being able to
wear down other teams. That makes sense and is a great
technique. Sarri-ball, from what I can discern, seems to wear
down Chelsea players more than their opponents at times. They
seem to using speed and passes just because Sarri wants them to
-- it looks meaningless to me at times. [/quote]
It is at times but the least that can be said for meaningless
passes is that one still retains possession. The other team
can't score on you when you possess the ball. That's a rather
negative way of looking at it and it would be so if your club
wasn't an attacking one and Napoli was an attacking club under
Sarri. It finished second last season just under a fabulous
Juventus. The problem at Chelsea is that the system's not
supplying the attackers like Sarri wants it to. Chelsea has
Pedro (ex-Barca), Wilian, Higuain, Hazard all who can place the
ball into the net readily but in Sarri's system, they're part of
an organic system which opens up channels for them so that they
pretty much can walk the ball into the net when it works
perfectly.
[quote]Sarri-ball also seems a bit too predictable. Messi, as
you point out, can be unpredictable. Perhaps if I watched more
match highlights when Chelsea lost I could get a better picture
of what's going wrong. I suspect -- again I don't know -- that
sometimes when Messi stalls like that, it serves more than one
purpose. The one Chelsea seems to need to master perhaps is
how to regain their balance when things go awry and positions
get lost. I suspect that sometimes Messi is stalling to enable
the other players to take up better positions. While the
opponents are looking at him, his teammates are improving their
positions, getting ready for the next play. I suspect that, but
I don't know. If that is what is going on, Chelsea might
improve by imitating the technique. The question may be if
Hazard or Higuain can master that technique -- or if Sarri would
approve of it. I don't know if Sarri is aware of the
technique -- perhaps not since he complains about how Chelsea
players get confused. I assume that every team has to deal
with some confusion. Anytime a player steals the ball from the
other team, there is an interval of time where everyone has to
deal with the fact that possession of the ball has changed.
Positions of players may need adjusting. Who knows?[/quote]
I hear what you're saying here, Kerry. And you're right to a
certain extent. The metronome in his system is Jorginho who he
brought with him from Napoli. He's been "discovered" by the
other clubs and so, overrun in midfield. Kante's been moved up
to attacking instead of holding-midfielder, so until Sarri
figures out his midfield and how to integrate the others
(defence/forwards) with it, he's going to have problems. The
thing is, with Sarri's system, it doesn't really matter too much
if his system is predictable or uncovered by opposing teams -
- you can't really do much about it when it's clicking
perfectly. You end up chasing the ball the whole game. I watched
that match where Napoli defeated Juventus. I think it was 1-0.
Juventus couldn't score with all their high-paid players there.
Check out the hilites, especially the second half. Juventus were
worn out by them. It's extraordinary watching Napoli under Sarri
when it's in form. It really is special, something different,
akin to the way Barca can play at their highest level at times.
It's all Napoli carving open Juventus in the bianconeri box:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=zo9dnPcpEOY
That losing the ball and trying to regain it is called getting
back into shape or form while the match plays on. I've seen
Barca make some horrible sequences of passes in matches. They
weren't sharp at all in their last one.
[quote]Why did he take the job at Chelsea then? [/quote]
More $? Conte convinced him to have a go? A new challenge?
[quote]Whether he keeps his job may depend on the Europa League
matches coming up soon. I checked out the standings --
Chelsea's not doing too bad. If Sarri can do good enough to get
them back in the UEFA Champions League, he may not get the
ax.[/quote]
Winning the Europa is the back-door entrance to the Champions
League. You can end up in a Europa spot or less in your league
but if you win the Europa, you get a spot in the Champions
League (Group Stage). The next three matches might be his last.
Sarri's said he hasn't had any contact with Abramovich. I hope
he does well in those three because I think British club
football needs improvement when you have a look at what nations
have been winning the CL lately:
2017-18
2016-17
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
para . . . .
#Post#: 21493--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: Kerry Date: February 14, 2019, 8:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1384.msg21470#msg21470
date=1550010639]
Winning the Europa is the back-door entrance to the Champions
League. You can end up in a Europa spot or less in your league
but if you win the Europa, you get a spot in the Champions
League (Group Stage). The next three matches might be his last.
Sarri's said he hasn't had any contact with Abramovich.
[/quote]More later I hope, but for now let me repeat my old
complaint that Abramovich is one of the problems. He appears to
be letting Sarri dangle not knowing what to expect. He could
at least call Sarri and ask him not to discuss their phone
conversations. I'm sure Sarri wouldn't if asked not to. It's
almost as if Abramovich enjoys dangling the proverbial sword of
Damocles over people. I don't see it as emotionally supportive
or healthy. It also sounds to me as if Sarri is trying to send
Abramovich signals that he'd like more communication. Remember
how Sarri was kept largely in the dark about Pulisic.
I think it critical for owners to show they trust their managers
by confiding certain things; and then the managers can show they
are worthy of that trust by keeping secrets. I don't see that
happening at Chelsea. The actual running of the club is left
to two people Abramovich seems to trust from what I've read at
the Daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6704179/Who-Stamford-Bridge-…
/> Marina Granovskaia first of all and Eugene Tenenbaum. Neithe
r
really come from a football background. That article says it
was mostly her idea to hire Sarri; but some reports say they've
clashed since then.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1070336/Chelsea-transfer-news-Maurizio…
CHELSEA manager Maurizio Sarri is �being made to look a bit of a
fool� by director of football Marina Granovskaia.
That is the opinion of football operations consultant Ian
McGarry.
Sarri joined in the summer and was informed that the club�s
transfer activity runs through Granovskaia, who worked with
owner Roman Abramovich on previous business ventures.
The extent to which is Sarri is not involved in recruitment came
to light last week following the signing of Christian Pulisic,
whom the Italian manager had merely given his positive appraisal
on a couple months prior.
Cesc Fabregas� mooted transfer to Monaco is now bringing Sarri�s
obliviousness to light once more, with the manager publicly
acknowledging the player�s impending departure, only for the
move to stall.
- - - -
�When she effectively contradicts the manager and says �this
player can�t be sold until we find a replacement� - that seems a
little odd.
�And I�m not sure Sarri, who�s kind of no-nonsense in his
approach to these things, might be best pleased at the way this
has been handled because he�s being made to look a bit of a fool
given his public comments and how things have transpired since.�
McGarry then went on to question the structure of the club, and
how much influence Granovskaia has over the manager.
Another odd thing happened. We discussed the locker room scene;
but it turns out that some staff people were locked out of that.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1081443/Chelsea-Maurizio-Sarri-Granovs…
Chelsea boss Sarri thinks backroom staff are LEAKING information
to Granovskaia - Castles
CHELSEA boss Maurizio Sarri thinks his backroom staff could be
leaking information to Roman Abramovich and transfer guru Marina
Granovskaia, according to Duncan Castles.
Chelsea suffered a 4-0 capitulation at Bournemouth on Wednesday,
which represented the club's heaviest defeat in 23 years. That
has left Sarri, just six months into a three-year deal, now
fighting for his job.
He locked the players in for a heated post-mortem afterwards -
but the backroom staff were excluded.
Duncan Castles told the Transfer Window podcast: �The most
telling thing that happened from the reports at Bournemouth is
after the midweek game, for me, was that Sarri shut his entire
backroom staff out of the dressing down he gave to the players.
�Now why would you do that as a manager? I�ve not heard of that
happening before at a club.
�I�ve heard of individuals being excluded from particular
meetings because the manager didn�t trust him, but I�ve not
heard of the entire backroom staff being shutout and that
suggests to me that Sarri doesn�t trust his backroom staff.
�He thinks that they, or a large number of them, are a source of
leaks, not necessarily to the press but maybe to the owner and
to Marina Granovskaia.
�If he�s isolated himself to the point where he doesn�t even
trust a percentage of his backroom staff and doesn�t trust them
to the extent that he shuts them out of a meeting like that then
not only has he got a lot of the players against him, he
probably doesn�t have many of the people who are supposed to be
assisting him in great support of him.
�I�ve heard there is definitely an element of distrust there but
I think if you�re Maurizio Sarri and you were examining the
situation, you�d be thinking who�s my assistant manager, who was
he appointed by and is he the guy who the club are likely to
turn to?
I think club management and Abramovich are dysfunctional, and
Sarri has reacted and also gone dysfunctional. If that story
is true, who could succeed there for long?
Granovskaia's main emphasis seems to be on the financial angle
of it all. While money has to be a consideration, some people
think she's made some unfortunate decisions.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-dealmaker-marina-granovskaia-…
Sure, Chelsea have won the title twice in the past four seasons,
but they have also failed to qualify for the Champions League
twice in the last three.
It is one of the reasons why key duo Thibaut Courtois and Eden
Hazard are looking to leave west London. As Granovskaia is in
charge of negotiations, why were the Belgium internationals not
tied down to new long-term deals long ago?
Talks first began in 2017 and, yet, here we are, two of
Chelsea�s best players with 12 months and two years left on
their contracts respectively. By haggling over the terms,
Chelsea stand to lose a lot more.
Yes, why weren't they resigned?
Courtois looks certain to join Real Madrid for just �35.5m as
the Blues cannot afford to let him leave on a free. But that is
an absolute bargain.
In 2015, Granovskaia told Real that the keeper was worth �73m.
Since then, he has won another Premier League title, an FA Cup
and helped Belgium finish third in the World Cup while winning
the Golden Glove award for being the tournament�s best
goalkeeper. At 26, his best years are to come and yet he is
being sold for less than half of what he was valued three
seasons before.
Granovskaia has worked wonders to bring Chelsea�s net spend down
over the past four years, so much so it has been lower than that
of Everton and Crystal Palace. But some transfer dealings have
been botched, like that of John Stones in 2015 and Romelu Lukaku
last year. Some of the new arrivals have been overpriced and,
frankly, not good enough.
Beating Manchester City to Jorginho was a step in the right
direction, but the club cannot afford for it to be a one-off.
The problem is, the person who can provide all the reassurances
on that score remains in the shadows.
I find it amazing that Chelsea's net spend was lower than that
of Everton and Crystal Palace. Okay, so they signed Pulisic. Is
that enough?
Abramovich is starting to remind me of President Trump who
seems to enjoy chaos in the people around him.
#Post#: 21494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: Kerry Date: February 15, 2019, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The highlights of the match with Malmo surprised me. I thought
Malmo played dirty. I see from the stats they did with 19
fouls to Chelsea's 9. Huguain and Hazard sat this one out,
and Chelsea won anyway. I wonder if Sarri thought it best not
to risk having them injured?
Barkley had a nice goal; and then Willian (#22) gave a nice
assist to Giroud who was well placed to make the goal. Willian
seemed in better form than in the disastrous match. Some of
the match was chaotic; but the stats on passes favored Chelsea
strongly. They completed 741 out of 784 passes while Malmo
completed 265 out of 321. That means Malmo lost possession 56
times (17.4%) to Chelsea's 43 (5.5%). Needless to say Chelsea
had possession most of the match.
But what a confusing match since the Blues wore yellow. It
disoriented me at first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7BPbNaQeI0
Hazard was at the match and got a few minutes of play in. He
still made a little news.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/8431685/chelsea-transfer-news-live-haza…
EDEN Hazard has been in and out of newspaper headlines for a
while now, with constant rumours of a possible summer move to
Real Madrid.
Yet, the Belgian was getting a little too much love on
Valentine's Day from the fans in Sweden, after having to
wrestled off a pitch invader during Chelsea's win over Malmo.
CHELSEA earned a 2-1 win over Malmo with Eden Hazard getting
just 19 minutes under his belt as Maurizio Sarri gave some of
his fringe players a go.
And Blues fans could soon be seeing even less of the Belgian as
a friend revealed Hazard has wanted to quit the club �since the
summer�.
#Post#: 21496--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: paralambano Date: February 15, 2019, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
[quote]The highlights of the match with Malmo surprised me. I
thought Malmo played dirty. I see from the stats they did with
19 fouls to Chelsea's 9. Huguain and Hazard sat this one out,
and Chelsea won anyway. I wonder if Sarri thought it best not
to risk having them injured? [/quote]
No doubt he's saving them for upcoming matches.
Malmo. Big Swedes.
[quote]Barkley had a nice goal; and then Willian (#22) gave a
nice assist to Giroud who was well placed to make the goal.
Willian seemed in better form than in the disastrous match.
Some of the match was chaotic; but the stats on passes favored
Chelsea strongly. They completed 741 out of 784 passes while
Malmo completed 265 out of 321. That means Malmo lost
possession 56 times (17.4%) to Chelsea's 43 (5.5%). Needless
to say Chelsea had possession most of the match. [/quote]
Ya, it's Chelsea's style to keep the ball even without
Sarriball. The stats show us that it's reasonable to say that
Malmo were frustrated chasing the ball and out came the
machetes.
[quote]But what a confusing match since the Blues wore yellow.
It disoriented me at first. [/quote]
One of several away kits for the season.
[quote]More later I hope, but for now let me repeat my old
complaint that Abramovich is one of the problems. He appears to
be letting Sarri dangle not knowing what to expect. He could
at least call Sarri and ask him not to discuss their phone
conversations. I'm sure Sarri wouldn't if asked not to. It's
almost as if Abramovich enjoys dangling the proverbial sword of
Damocles over people. I don't see it as emotionally supportive
or healthy. It also sounds to me as if Sarri is trying to send
Abramovich signals that he'd like more communication. Remember
how Sarri was kept largely in the dark about Pulisic.[/quote]
It doesn't help that there were rumours that Abramovich wanted
to sell the club. Perhaps Abramovich is taking a laissez-faire
approach with Sarri and letting the string play out. In any
case, he could be hearing from the Board at least. If I were in
his shoes, I wouldn't be looking for confirmation from anyone.
I'd just plow on :).
[quote]I think it critical for owners to show they trust their
managers by confiding certain things; and then the managers can
show they are worthy of that trust by keeping secrets. I don't
see that happening at Chelsea. The actual running of the club
is left to two people Abramovich seems to trust from what I've
read at the Daily Mail: Marina Granovskaia first of all and
Eugene Tenenbaum. Neither really come from a football
background. That article says it was mostly her idea to hire
Sarri; but some reports say they've clashed since then.[/quote]
Sarri's 57, not 35. He's not about to go running after anyone.
[quote]Duncan Castles told the Transfer Window podcast: �The
most telling thing that happened from the reports at Bournemouth
is after the midweek game, for me, was that Sarri shut his
entire backroom staff out of the dressing down he gave to the
players.
�Now why would you do that as a manager? I�ve not heard of that
happening before at a club.
�I�ve heard of individuals being excluded from particular
meetings because the manager didn�t trust him, but I�ve not
heard of the entire backroom staff being shutout and that
suggests to me that Sarri doesn�t trust his backroom staff.
I think club management and Abramovich are dysfunctional, and
Sarri has reacted and also gone dysfunctional. If that story
is true, who could succeed there for long?
Granovskaia's main emphasis seems to be on the financial angle
of it all. While money has to be a consideration, some people
think she's made some unfortunate decisions.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-dealmaker-marina-granovskaia-…
He's been hired to coach players, not staff. They're not on the
pitch - - his players are.
[quote]Sure, Chelsea have won the title twice in the past four
seasons, but they have also failed to qualify for the Champions
League twice in the last three.
It is one of the reasons why key duo Thibaut Courtois and Eden
Hazard are looking to leave west London. As Granovskaia is in
charge of negotiations, why were the Belgium internationals not
tied down to new long-term deals long ago?
Talks first began in 2017 and, yet, here we are, two of
Chelsea�s best players with 12 months and two years left on
their contracts respectively. By haggling over the terms,
Chelsea stand to lose a lot more.
Yes, why weren't they resigned? [/quote]
Courtois wanted a Real move because his family is in Madrid and
he had a chance to play for successive Champions League winners.
Hazard has said that his dream is to play in Spain so it doesn't
appear that he wants to leave Chelsea for anywhere else.
[quote]I find it amazing that Chelsea's net spend was lower than
that of Everton and Crystal Palace. Okay, so they signed
Pulisic. Is that enough?[/quote]
Well, they did get Higuain rather cheaply compared to what Juve
paid for him. Is it enough? Probably not for Sarriball.
[quote]Abramovich is starting to remind me of President Trump
who seems to enjoy chaos in the people around him. [/quote]
I think it's very speculative to say that Abramovich enjoys
chaos in those around him. Rather, I think that he enjoys
success. I think that he's a risk-taker as shown by his hiring
of Sarri and his continuing to buy real-estate in London. If he
had enjoyed chaos, he'd have kept on Mourinho and Conte.
para . . . .
#Post#: 21498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: Kerry Date: February 16, 2019, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1384.msg21496#msg21496
date=1550241175]
Kerry -
No doubt he's saving them for upcoming matches.
Malmo. Big Swedes.
Ya, it's Chelsea's style to keep the ball even without
Sarriball. The stats show us that it's reasonable to say that
Malmo were frustrated chasing the ball and out came the
machetes.[/quote]Their coach should reflect on their number of
unsuccessful passes and work on that instead of letting his
players take out their frustrations by fouling. Surely, I can
see Malmo getting frustrated when Chelsea was ahead and kept
possession most of the time; but there is something they could
do about that -- like practicing on passing. When they did have
possession, they often lost it with unsuccessful passing.
[quote]One of several away kits for the season.[/quote]Ha, it
shouldn't be allowed if they're going to call themselves the
Blues. 8)
[quote]It doesn't help that there were rumours that Abramovich
wanted to sell the club. Perhaps Abramovich is taking a
laissez-faire approach with Sarri and letting the string play
out. In any case, he could be hearing from the Board at least.
[/quote]My guess is Abramovich often does let the board handle
most things. If he's making money, who cares?
[quote]If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't be looking for
confirmation from anyone. I'd just plow on :).[/quote]That
seems to be what he's doing for the most part.
[quote]Sarri's 57, not 35. He's not about to go running after
anyone.
He's been hired to coach players, not staff. They're not on the
pitch - - his players are.[/quote]But why make sure they
weren't in the dressing room?
[quote]Courtois wanted a Real move because his family is in
Madrid and he had a chance to play for successive Champions
League winners. Hazard has said that his dream is to play in
Spain so it doesn't appear that he wants to leave Chelsea for
anywhere else.
Well, they did get Higuain rather cheaply compared to what Juve
paid for him. Is it enough? Probably not for Sarriball.
I think it's very speculative to say that Abramovich enjoys
chaos in those around him. Rather, I think that he enjoys
success. I think that he's a risk-taker as shown by his hiring
of Sarri and his continuing to buy real-estate in London. If he
had enjoyed chaos, he'd have kept on Mourinho and Conte.
[/quote]I would say the problems with Mourinho and Conte were
likely the result of chaos and the ensuing stress which I hold
Abramovich and his "insiders" on the board help create. Don't
forget that Mourinho left Chelsea "by mutual consent."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos�_Mourinho#2007�08_season
In the first match of the 2007�08 season, Chelsea beat
Birmingham City 3�2 to set a new record of 64 consecutive home
league matches without defeat. Despite surpassing the record set
by Liverpool between 1978 and 1981,] the start to the 2007�08
Chelsea season was less successful as previous starts. The team
lost at Aston Villa and followed this with a goalless draw at
home to Blackburn Rovers. Their opening game in the UEFA
Champions League saw them only manage a 1�1 home draw against
the Norwegian team Rosenborg BK in front of only 24,973 (an
almost half-empty stadium) which included an unimpressed owner
Roman Abramovich.
Mourinho unexpectedly left Chelsea on 20 September 2007 "by
mutual consent", although there had been a series of
disagreements with owner Abramovich. The Chelsea board held an
emergency meeting and decided it was time to part with their
manager. Mourinho left as the most successful manager in
Chelsea's history, having won six trophies for the club in three
years. He was also undefeated in all home league games. Avram
Grant succeeded Mourinho as Chelsea manager but failed to win
any trophies in his year in charge and would be sacked at the
end of the 2007�08 season. Grant's squad managed to reach the
final of the Champions League (something Mourinho failed to
achieve in his three years at Chelsea), reach the final of the
League Cup and maintained the unbeaten home streak at Stamford
Bridge. Grant's Chelsea also finished second in the Premier
League.
I don't know the details of those disagreements; but I think I'd
side with Mourinho since his record as a manager is, well,
spectacular. If an owner wants a winning team and hires a
winning manager, do whatever the manager advises.
And before that, Mourinho had to take on other people who
disagreed with him.
The 2006�07 season saw growing media speculation that Mourinho
would leave the club at the season's conclusion, due to alleged
poor relations with owner Roman Abramovich and a power struggle
with sporting director Frank Arnesen and Abramovich advisor Piet
de Visser. Mourinho later cleared doubts regarding his future at
Stamford Bridge, stating that there would only be two ways for
him to leave Chelsea: if Chelsea were not to offer him a new
contract in June 2010, and if Chelsea were to sack him.
When you see power struggles in any organization, it means the
person at the top is permitting it. The structure of authority
is not laid out in a way that everyone knows who's in charge of
what. There are people who believe allowing chaos in the ranks
below them weakens anyone who otherwise rise through the ranks
and replace them. They keep the people under them fighting each
other.
I also hold Conte in high regard. I don't think he should have
been fired the way he was. There may be details I don't know
about. For example, did Conte get the players he wanted, or was
the board at Chelsea unwilling to pay up? Let me repeat the
quote:
Granovskaia has worked wonders to bring Chelsea�s net spend down
over the past four years, so much so it has been lower than that
of Everton and Crystal Palace. But some transfer dealings have
been botched, like that of John Stones in 2015 and Romelu Lukaku
last year. Some of the new arrivals have been overpriced and,
frankly, not good enough.
What those things together suggest to me is that Abramovich and
the board expected Conte to win and win and win without their
spending money on acquiring players.
Ha, ha, so after they fired Conte, they realized they were wrong
and now they're willing to spend some money. Wouldn't it have
been better to have spent more when Conte was there? That's
one possible factor. I suspect there may have been other
sources of friction, and I can't imagine Conte being the major
source of it. He's a very team-oriented person.
#Post#: 21500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: paralambano Date: February 16, 2019, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
[quote]Their coach should reflect on their number of
unsuccessful passes and work on that instead of letting his
players take out their frustrations by fouling. Surely, I can
see Malmo getting frustrated when Chelsea was ahead and kept
possession most of the time; but there is something they could
do about that -- like practicing on passing. When they did have
possession, they often lost it with unsuccessful
passing.[/quote]
True. Their coach should teach them how to remain cool when the
team is being dominated.
[quote]My guess is Abramovich often does let the board handle
most things. If he's making money, who cares? [/quote]
You know, neither of us can really speak for him but I'm
guessing that in a sense you could be correct in that he has
moneyed interests outside of soccer since one doesn't really
make a lot of money by soccer relatively speaking. I'm thinking
that he loves the sport and has the means to perhaps deliver the
type of football that he likes to see. I'm beginning to think
that Abramovich not only wants European victory, he wants it
with a certain flair played. He fired Roberto Di Matteo in 2013
after Di Matteo had won the Champions League and FA Cup for him
in 2012. Sure, Di Matteo had a poor start the following season
and had been appointed as interim coach and that seemed to be
why he was let go but I think perhaps that Abramovich might have
been looking for something more. He's reportedly a great admirer
of Pep Guardiola.
[quote]But why make sure they weren't in the dressing
room?[/quote]
Because he wanted a private meeting with his players there.
[quote]In the first match of the 2007�08 season, Chelsea beat
Birmingham City 3�2 to set a new record of 64 consecutive home
league matches without defeat. Despite surpassing the record set
by Liverpool between 1978 and 1981,] the start to the 2007�08
Chelsea season was less successful as previous starts. The team
lost at Aston Villa and followed this with a goalless draw at
home to Blackburn Rovers. Their opening game in the UEFA
Champions League saw them only manage a 1�1 home draw against
the Norwegian team Rosenborg BK in front of only 24,973 (an
almost half-empty stadium) which included an unimpressed owner
Roman Abramovich.
Mourinho unexpectedly left Chelsea on 20 September 2007 "by
mutual consent", although there had been a series of
disagreements with owner Abramovich. The Chelsea board held an
emergency meeting and decided it was time to part with their
manager. Mourinho left as the most successful manager in
Chelsea's history, having won six trophies for the club in three
years. He was also undefeated in all home league games. Avram
Grant succeeded Mourinho as Chelsea manager but failed to win
any trophies in his year in charge and would be sacked at the
end of the 2007�08 season. Grant's squad managed to reach the
final of the Champions League (something Mourinho failed to
achieve in his three years at Chelsea), reach the final of the
League Cup and maintained the unbeaten home streak at Stamford
Bridge. Grant's Chelsea also finished second in the Premier
League.
The 2006�07 season saw growing media speculation that Mourinho
would leave the club at the season's conclusion, due to alleged
poor relations with owner Roman Abramovich and a power struggle
with sporting director Frank Arnesen and Abramovich advisor Piet
de Visser. Mourinho later cleared doubts regarding his future at
Stamford Bridge, stating that there would only be two ways for
him to leave Chelsea: if Chelsea were not to offer him a new
contract in June 2010, and if Chelsea were to sack him.
I don't know the details of those disagreements; but I think I'd
side with Mourinho since his record as a manager is, well,
spectacular. If an owner wants a winning team and hires a
winning manager, do whatever the manager advises.
And before that, Mourinho had to take on other people who
disagreed with him.
[/quote]
Yes, Mourinho won all the domestic cups for Chelsea (7) but he
failed to win the Champions League in that term. He had won it
with Porto in Portugal in 2004 and he was hired to bring Chelsea
their first European silverware. In addition, Mourinho was
opposed to the appointment of Avram Grant as club director and
the purchase of Ukrainian star Andriy Shevchenko.
The Sarri situation appears to be quite different since Sarri
has won nothing. What can this mean?
This doesn't addressed his 2013-2015 tenure as Chelsea coach.
Here are Mourinho's words in 2004:
"I'm sorry I'm a bit arrogant, but we have a top manager," he
said then. "I am the European champion. I think I am a special
one."
In a way, he reminds me of Trump with his manner of
divisiveness.
[quote]When you see power struggles in any organization, it
means the person at the top is permitting it. The structure of
authority is not laid out in a way that everyone knows who's in
charge of what. There are people who believe allowing chaos in
the ranks below them weakens anyone who otherwise rise through
the ranks and replace them. They keep the people under them
fighting each other.
[/quote]
Mourinho now admits that he didn't leave by "mutual consent". He
was sacked. Abramovich doesn't want chaos I believe. He wants
the beautiful game and Europe. If he can't have the latter,
he'll at least have the former. But he doesn't want a coach who
is divisive as was Mourinho who was feuding with even members of
his medical staff apparently. He was given a second chance by
Abramovich in 2013 after his tenure at Real Madrid and won the
EPL with Chelsea in 2015 but apparently, again his rather
"arrogant" and caustic style led to his leaving. And so on at
Manchester United FC. There appears to be a pattern there.
[quote]I would say the problems with Mourinho and Conte were
likely the result of chaos and the ensuing stress which I hold
Abramovich and his "insiders" on the board help create. Don't
forget that Mourinho left Chelsea "by mutual consent."[/quote]
He was fired by his own admission.
[quote]I also hold Conte in high regard. I don't think he
should have been fired the way he was. There may be details I
don't know about. For example, did Conte get the players he
wanted, or was the board at Chelsea unwilling to pay up? Let me
repeat the quote:
Granovskaia has worked wonders to bring Chelsea�s net spend down
over the past four years, so much so it has been lower than that
of Everton and Crystal Palace. But some transfer dealings have
been botched, like that of John Stones in 2015 and Romelu Lukaku
last year. Some of the new arrivals have been overpriced and,
frankly, not good enough.
What those things together suggest to me is that Abramovich and
the board expected Conte to win and win and win without their
spending money on acquiring players. [/quote]
I like Conte too but he had lost the locker room at Chelsea. He
feuded with Diego Costa and David Luiz and the non-playing
staff. His mood apparently grew negative. I don't know but I'm
guessing he had trouble handling the pressure of leading this
club. You see how excitable he could be on the sidelines. Now,
Sarri appears to have some of these negatives but all-in-all
might be a little calmer than Antonio and perhaps better suited
to handling the great pressure he's under. You saw him in that
last match v Malmo in the hilites, sitting there, studiously
scribbling away apart from the technical area. Conte would be
running back and forth in the technical area, shouting and
flailing his arms at his players practically the entire match.
Yes, Sarri appeared to be a sore loser by not shaking
Guardiola's hand but he just abruptly left the dugout for the
locker room at the end of the match without any discernible
histrionics.
[quote]What those things together suggest to me is that
Abramovich and the board expected Conte to win and win and win
without their spending money on acquiring players. [/quote]
Conte already had the players for his kind of football. Chelsea
often played beautiful one-touch football under him but he
wasn't there to shake things up in a big way.
[quote]Ha, ha, so after they fired Conte, they realized they
were wrong and now they're willing to spend some money.
Wouldn't it have been better to have spent more when Conte was
there? That's one possible factor. I suspect there may have
been other sources of friction, and I can't imagine Conte being
the major source of it. He's a very team-oriented
person.[/quote]
Kerry, Conte appeared to be a wreck before he left. A dark cloud
over him. He had lost the dressing room. It's all over then. You
don't take out on the players you have your lack of influence in
transfer dealings if that's the case. You do that with the boss.
Perhaps things would have gone differently. Sarri was able to
bring Jorginho with him and now has his star in Higuain by way
of his tenure at Napoli. If Sarri lasts through to the summer,
maybe more. If Sarri needs more, a different type of player, he
should be discussing this with his boss. So far, I've heard
next-to-nothing about Sarri complaining that he doesn't have the
players he needs. His thing it appears is dealing with the
"mentality" of the ones he has:
�It�s not easy to play tomorrow after a 6-0 but we have to play
and we have to play well. We want to win and react immediately.
In my opinion the last game was not a problem of motivation. We
were not able to react to the first difficulty during the match
because, in the first four or five minutes, we�d actually
started well. Then, after their first goal, we were not able to
react. So the problem is different. But it�s always a mind
problem, a mental problem, so we need to solve them.� (Maurizio
Sarri)
para . . . .
#Post#: 21509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea
By: Kerry Date: February 16, 2019, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1384.msg21500#msg21500
date=1550330229]
You know, neither of us can really speak for him but I'm
guessing that in a sense you could be correct in that he has
moneyed interests outside of soccer since one doesn't really
make a lot of money by soccer relatively speaking. I'm thinking
that he loves the sport and has the means to perhaps deliver the
type of football that he likes to see. [/quote]I read his
wanting to own a team as vanity. I remember what you related
about the reason he didn't want to buy Manchester United. He
found the posh surroundings of affluent Chelsea more in line
with the picture he had of himself. This is a man who is more
concerned with appearances than reality. The way he spends his
money also tells me he probably enjoys flaunting his wealth.
[quote]I'm beginning to think that Abramovich not only wants
European victory, he wants it with a certain flair played. He
fired Roberto Di Matteo in 2013 after Di Matteo had won the
Champions League and FA Cup for him in 2012. Sure, Di Matteo had
a poor start the following season and had been appointed as
interim coach and that seemed to be why he was let go but I
think perhaps that Abramovich might have been looking for
something more. He's reportedly a great admirer of Pep
Guardiola.[/quote]There is such a long list of fired good
managers, I can't believe they're the ones responsible.
[quote]Because he wanted a private meeting with his players
there.[/quote]Ha, ha, and why? Is he that concerned about what
get leaked to the board or something?
[quote]Yes, Mourinho won all the domestic cups for Chelsea (7)
but he failed to win the Champions League in that term. He had
won it with Porto in Portugal in 2004 and he was hired to bring
Chelsea their first European silverware. In addition, Mourinho
was opposed to the appointment of Avram Grant as club director
and the purchase of Ukrainian star Andriy Shevchenko.
[/quote]Oh yes, let's talk a bit about Grant. He's Jewish as is
Abramovich. He was also a close friend. (I don't know if
they're still friends.) Was Grant really that good at his
job? Was he better than Mourinho? Yet somehow Mourinho got
fired and Grant got his job! That reeks.
I also have to wonder if Chelsea would have won the match in
Moscow back in 2008 against Manchester United if Mourinho had
been the manager. How embarrassing for Abramovich to have his
team lose in his home city. Okay, okay, so Grant got Chelsea to
the final in the Champions League. So what? I could argue the
team knew what they were doing largely because of Mourinho.
Almost anyone could have managed them and done fairly well.
It suggests to me that Grant was plotting against Mourinho to
try to get his job; and Abramovich allowed personal
relationships to cloud his judgment.
[quote]The Sarri situation appears to be quite different since
Sarri has won nothing. What can this mean?[/quote]
Sarri's record may not include a trophy, but it's still
impressive. I would guess that Abramovich had difficulties
finding someone on such short notice. He had probably been
trying to line up a replacement for Conte before firing him; and
who could he find? I'm not sure why Sarri got sacked, but he
was available. Me? I wouldn't want to work for Abramovich even
if I was available, not if I had another job.
It was a smart move for Sarri in one way. Nobody is going to be
surprised if and when he gets fired; and then he can get a
better job.
[quote]This doesn't addressed his 2013-2015 tenure as Chelsea
coach. Here are Mourinho's words in 2004:
"I'm sorry I'm a bit arrogant, but we have a top manager," he
said then. "I am the European champion. I think I am a special
one."
In a way, he reminds me of Trump with his manner of
divisiveness. [/quote]Maybe he was trying to be frank. Another
way I read that he put that was, "Please don't call me arrogant.
. . ." My impression is he realized he would never be "great"
as a player, that his strengths lay elsewhere.
[quote]Mourinho now admits that he didn't leave by "mutual
consent". He was sacked. Abramovich doesn't want chaos I
believe. He wants the beautiful game and Europe. If he can't
have the latter, he'll at least have the former. [/quote]
Why does he tolerate the chaos then?
[quote]But he doesn't want a coach who is divisive as was
Mourinho who was feuding with even members of his medical staff
apparently. He was given a second chance by Abramovich in 2013
after his tenure at Real Madrid and won the EPL with Chelsea in
2015 but apparently, again his rather "arrogant" and caustic
style led to his leaving. And so on at Manchester United FC.
There appears to be a pattern there.
He was fired by his own admission.[/quote]Perhaps he was under
too much pressure from Abramovich or the board and that got
transferred into feuding with medics, etc.
[quote]I like Conte too but he had lost the locker room at
Chelsea. He feuded with Diego Costa and David Luiz and the
non-playing staff. His mood apparently grew negative. I don't
know but I'm guessing he had trouble handling the pressure of
leading this club. You see how excitable he could be on the
sidelines. [/quote]I have a rather strong opinion about
non-playing staff: If the manager doesn't like them, tell them
to find jobs elsewhere. If clubs followed that rule, there
would less friction between staff and managers. If staff knows
they can get away with things that annoy the manager, they lack
the incentive to work with him. And if someone on the board who
dislikes the manager is buddies with a staff member, he may be
provoking the manager on purpose to please the board member.
It's asking for problems to have staff answering to the board
and not to the manager. Chelsea's history seems full of this
kind of conflict; and now Sarri resorted to locking them out of
a meeting.
[quote]Now, Sarri appears to have some of these negatives but
all-in-all might be a little calmer than Antonio and perhaps
better suited to handling the great pressure he's under. You saw
him in that last match v Malmo in the hilites, sitting there,
studiously scribbling away apart from the technical area. Conte
would be running back and forth in the technical area, shouting
and flailing his arms at his players practically the entire
match. Yes, Sarri appeared to be a sore loser by not shaking
Guardiola's hand but he just abruptly left the dugout for the
locker room at the end of the match without any discernible
histrionics.
Conte already had the players for his kind of football. Chelsea
often played beautiful one-touch football under him but he
wasn't there to shake things up in a big way.
Kerry, Conte appeared to be a wreck before he left. A dark cloud
over him. He had lost the dressing room. It's all over then. You
don't take out on the players you have your lack of influence in
transfer dealings if that's the case. You do that with the boss.
Perhaps things would have gone differently.[/quote]
What if you can't talk it out with the boss? I think Conte
might have been a calmer person if he had felt more in control
of what was happening. I hope Sarri doesn't lose the dressing
room completely; but he's taken a few steps in that direction, I
put a lot of the blame on the board and on Abramovich. People
are apt to get irrational when frustrated and they don't know
what to do to solve the problems.
Let's go back to when Grant was staff. Who had Abramovich's
ear? I suspect Mourinho felt a little paranoid at times. Who
has his ear now? Sarri doesn't.
[quote]Sarri was able to bring Jorginho with him and now has his
star in Higuain by way of his tenure at Napoli. If Sarri lasts
through to the summer, maybe more. If Sarri needs more, a
different type of player, he should be discussing this with his
boss. [/quote]I think he discussed it with the board members. I
don't know if he discussed it with Abramovich. He's gotten
some people he asked for, but we also see that Abramovich kept
him largely in the dark.
[quote]So far, I've heard next-to-nothing about Sarri
complaining that he doesn't have the players he needs. His thing
it appears is dealing with the "mentality" of the ones he has:
�It�s not easy to play tomorrow after a 6-0 but we have to play
and we have to play well. We want to win and react immediately.
In my opinion the last game was not a problem of motivation. We
were not able to react to the first difficulty during the match
because, in the first four or five minutes, we�d actually
started well. Then, after their first goal, we were not able to
react. So the problem is different. But it�s always a mind
problem, a mental problem, so we need to solve them.� (Maurizio
Sarri)[/quote]When I see a group of people crashing and burning
the way Chelsea did after a very good run, I always suspect
there's what Scientology calls a "chaos merchant" lurking
somewhere, stirring up trouble. Scientology also talks about
"roller-coastering" around a chaos merchant. If someone was too
difficult to deal with 100% of the time, nobody would stay
around them. So the chaos merchant is sometimes nice and
pleasant, and he will be ever so accommodating. Chelsea's
history under Abramovich is full of wild up and down swings.
Managers come and go, so I can't think one of them is
responsible, nor can I think they are all responsible. The
constant in the history is Abramovich. And I see also what
Scientology predicts: That most of the time, the chaos merchant
isn't the person held accountable -- no, the people around him
who got confused and made mistakes or who got frustrated and
vented on the wrong people are sacked.
When you see someone irrationally attacking others, odds are he
may be associating with a chaos merchant; and he is afraid of
attacking the real source of his woes, so he takes out his
frustrations on people he thinks can't fight back. Mourinho was
being irrational about the medic who went onto the pitch. She
had been summoned. Mourinho wasn't thinking straight. That
suggests to me he was in a situation he felt he couldn't fight
against -- but he could get angry with a medic.
*****************************************************
Next Page
You are viewing proxied material from gopher.createaforum.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.